My New Song...Name It For Me

I haven't written a ton of music as of late. I have a few that are coming but are unfinished. I stumbled across this one, which I wrote at the end of college, yesterday. The thing is, I never really came up with a name for it. I like the song, I think the message is relatively clear, and the recording came out pretty well for being done in our dorm room.

So, the issue remains. I wanted to share the song, but I didn't have a name for it. So I came up with this idea: have you all name it.

I put it on YouTube with the lyrics sliding by as it goes along in hopes that you'll listen to it. The visuals are minimalistic and bare bones, but that way you'll be able to focus. If you'd like, leave your idea for a title in the comments. I'll give two prizes, one for the one I pick or think most fits, then one for the most creative.

I'm seriously considering putting it on iTunes too, so anyone who wants to design some cover art for it as a single will win my heart forever (after Jesus, Allie, and my family of course).

Hope you enjoy.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbAihr-ws5o&]

-B

"Passion"ate Music in The Church

I've been enjoying my time off thus far. I've watched television, listened to music, and made Allie breakfast this morning. Good start to the break, This morning I started watching some of the videos from my Digital All Access Pass that I bought from Passion 2011. In the middle of the second one, I started having some thoughts about what was actually occurring. I was watching a worship session, watching others worship to new music that they had just learned. It seemed strange, possibly for one of the first times, that I was watching others worship God. A little weird right? Many readers might take this opportunity to move to the next logical step. The step might be that this is entertainment instead of worship and it's just wrong by principle(and hence why I am watching it and feeling strange) but hear me clearly: they are wrong, uninformed, and overly critical.

I immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was in a place where their feelings made sense. But something felt odd to me still, so I went to YouTube. You know what I found? A whole bunch of videos, posted online, of people worshipping in traditional settings. To traditional hymns. To an organ, sometimes a choir, and whole bunch of awful sounding tones. I mean, really, a lot of it was bad. Very bad.

So I thought, if the contemporary music model is so "wrong" because it allows itself very easily to be recorded and placed in a position where someone might watch it later for, perhaps, entertainment value, why in the world are these churches recording these hymns? There is almost nothing about it that is pleasing to the ear. The camera angles are such that you can rarely see anything of consequence. Why put this on YouTube?

As I struggled with this question, I considered different things: maybe they're trying to advertise their church. Maybe they're trying to pay homage to the old hymns. Maybe they just discovered that you can put things on YouTube and so they decided to try it. Any of these could be right.

But one significant difference stuck out: energy. The Passion videos had energy. I could feel it sitting here on the couch. The traditional videos didn't.

When I lead others in worship, and I tend to do a lot of that, I can tell by the middle of the first song whether or not the energy of the room is anything that can be worked with. I very much believe that though the Spirit is always present, sometimes it manifests itself in ways that are easier seen than other times.

As I sit in Goodson Chapel for worship during the day at Duke, sometimes I feel it, and sometimes I don't.

Over the past four years or so I have tried to experiment in ways that will make my methods of leading more effective. The ways I interact with the musicians, the way transitions are planned, the way the text of songs interacts with other parts of the service, all of this matters.

And I think that is where the contemporary music movement has hit a nail on the head. They discovered a way to be effective. Many of the songs are still used in appropriate times in worship. Many of the songs resemble good musicianship in the layout, form, and overall direction. And because they used a style of music that allows people to really move to and feel within themselves, they reached an inner part of the body and spirit that truly sings. Good music, no matter what the style, does this...but simplistic forms tend to resonate with our inner souls more.

There is a reason that slave songs sounded the way they did.

There is a reason that today's African American Gospel music borrows many themes and styles from old slave songs.

My argument is that I see the contemporary music movement doing and borrowing the same things. That's why, in the mostly-Caucasian world, it tends to invoke more energy in the room. When you hear a worship leader say, "I felt like they were really getting into it." I think this is the principle they are referring to.

Like it or not, in 2011, the traditional services and traditional worship styles of old do not carry the energy. Some may say this can't be true, and I might agree that this is a sad reality, but it is nonetheless a reality. At least I see it like this.

Keeping this in mind, my ultimate question is this: if the Spirit is always present and presumably the Spirit doesn't care what style of music is played, why does it manifest itself inside of this type of music more? How much of that depends on the musicianship of those leading? Do others experience the Spirit in different ways? If yes(most likely), does that manifest itself in ways that speak loudly (and tangibly)?

How do we know?

-B

Born This Way

I believe that by this point I have made it clear that eccentric, brilliant, crazy people intrigue me greatly. I don't really see how this will ever change. But, this new Lady Gaga video is beyond where I am willing to go.

Gaga' new single "Born This Way" found its way onto these here inter-webs in video form last week sometime on Vevo, YouTube's recent offering for legal artist-submitted and promoted music video content.

Born This Way, like Gaga's "Alejandro", is about 7 or 8 minutes long and truly reminds me of the old Michael videos that were really short films rather than just a music video. Something about this production style seems to be very artistic and I really like it. I like story lines, creativity, and one medium acting as another.

But, also like Alejandro, the video of Born This Way does not necessarily add to the song in a way that provides any insight into the textual poetry. And, also like Alejandro, it shows way too much skin unnecessarily. For that reason, I choose not to link to the video here as I would often do. I do consider it an attempt at art and so I won't necessarily discourage you from watching it, but I do recommend that you be careful.

The Born This Way video approaches the art of movie making much like the Thriller video did. It gives a little context, tells a little story, and then infiltrates the screen with dancing and singing. One major difference though: Gaga is nearly naked for the entire video. Same thing was true of the Alejandro video and when she WAS clothed she was dressed as a nun (and it eventually heads toward a sacrilegious ending). Not only is Gaga almost naked, but she enacts sexual movements throughout the video as well. It is extreme overkill. (Arguably, the Alejandro video is still much worse.)

Typically, those of us who are offended by this blatant sexual outpouring from a TV screen would just change the channel or click a different video. But I watched this all the way through because I couldn't figure out if it was the sexual discourse that I struggled with or whether or not it was the fact that this was a great song, written for a noble cause, and was simply destroyed by a terrible video design.

I interpret the text of the song like this: love yourself no matter who you are, what you do, how you feel, or what people think of you or call you. In today's world this is a message that ought to speak loudly. Very loudly. God makes no mistakes.

I interpret the video like this: a star like Gaga was born and helped to raise up followers who don't hate. Given, the metaphor used in the video was extreme, strong, and downright weird...but I still got the message.

Problem number one: is this video about keeping people from wanting to kill themselves because they feel out of place because they are gay, fat, or not cool? Or is it a message that Gaga is helping the world out by promoting self confidence? I would argue that it might be both. As a Christian, I appreciate an effort to promote an idea and message of love.

Here's the issue that I see though. If the ultimate goal is that someone love themselves no matter who they are or what they look like, what is the need for the sexual acts on screen? What good does that do? I might argue that, if anything, it only makes a fan look at Gaga's body and think differently about their own body. This seems counterproductive.

P!nk's new video and song seems to be a better representation of this message.

As a result of the issue stated above, I think that Gaga's new video does nothing to advance culture in a way that she wants it to advance (toward a movement of love and acceptance) because it is so bogged down with sexual aspects that a viewer may never be able to get past it. (Though, P!nk's new video uses the F word unnecessarily as well.)

It seems to me that the popular world is catching on to the damage it has caused. And some artists are trying to fix it. I appreciate that.

But, they're not seeing the whole picture.

-B

I have a lot a respect for Gaga but I think she is quickly losing me as a true fan.

Charlie Sheen and Jesus

As I have been watching ABC's interview with Charlie Sheen tonight, I am struck by how genuinely interested I am in crazy people. Though I can't really pin down why, crazy, eccentric people fascinate me. I've tried to figure it out and a few things came to me. Most notably, they have giant egos and are extremely good at what they do. But...there is more.

While watching the interview, I kept thinking, "My God, this guy is crazy."

And while translating Jesus' appearance before the Sanhedrin from Greek to English throughout the commercials, it occurred to me that this may have been how people viewed Jesus.

I mean, think about it. Here is a crazy man who does crazy things, talks in ways we can't really comprehend, has a completely different mindset on society and life, and seems on the outside to have a huge ego. (Jesus DID pretty much claim to be the son of God)

Jesus tended to live into a reality that certain principles that had been taught throughout history were finally coming to be. You could use the word "fulfillment." While I admit it is a stretch, it seems to me that Charlie Sheen is living into principles that have come to reality inside of him; these principles might be articulated as: winning is everything and only the best win.

Interestingly, Charlie Sheen has admitted fault in several situations and even apologized for some tonight...sort of. It is pretty well accepted by believers that Jesus was a perfect man.

Another comparison occurred to me; Jesus selected followers who followed him, left everything (Matthew 19) and were willing to believe in him, live like he asked them to live, and die for his cause. Charlie's "goddesses" seem to buy into the same mindset of him. And...people (mostly those in questionable job situations) seem to follow him still. To add, Charlie seemed to sum up his theory on life as "love" based around Charlie. Jesus seemed to sum up his "theory" (many of us would say...reality) as "love" based around Jesus (I include God the Father in this definition of Jesus).

Of course, I don't think Charlie Sheen is Jesus (I actually would hold to an argument to the contrary) but I do think that it can be an interesting study as to those in our presence who are crazy and the difference and effect they have on our lives.

Next week, Hitler and Jesus.

-B

Winning. Ugh.

This speaks for itself. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5aSa4tmVNM&]

-B

Team Jesus...then Bell. And Most Definitely, Not Team Piper

If you're reading this, you've probably heard the news and read the blogs: Rob Bell is being accused of preaching Universalism in his new book, Love Wins. His name was blowing up the trending topics on Saturday and discussions about this topic was all over this here interwebs. I will first point out that I once heard a sermon of Bell's where he said he wasn't actually that into "Love Wins" (a campaign that came out of his community) anymore because it was too complicated, instead, he liked, "Love."

Forgetting all that though, if you haven't heard the story, a blogger wrote about Bell's new book here.

Then, John Piper (my favorite theologian and pastor of all time...) wrote this and linked the blog post in a tweet: "Farewell, Rob Bell."

Nice, Piper. Very pastoral of you.

You know, I've got to agree with all of the others...the most bothersome thing about this whole mess is that the Piperists (and yes, I do take him as their leader) seem to be sooooo convinced about the fact that they are right when it comes to salvation and they're basing their argument where they themselves admitted that Bell's language was ambiguous at best! Unbelievable. [Click on "salvation" to see my previous thoughts about how God goes about "saving people"]

And as far as "Farewell, Rob Bell" is concerned...I'm not even sure that I know what he was intending to mean (for those who have heard Piper speak before, this shouldn't be a new concept). I do know one thing about the comment though: it is not loving, it is not pastoral, and it seems to be downright rude.

So, perhaps here I will let Piper's words speak for themselves. Like Charlie Sheen, Piper's words define who he is: a butthead.

Guess who will be skipping Piper's session at Passion next year.

I love you Piper(Jesus commanded it), but you do not have the right to be so rude to others. This is obviously not the first time in history this has happened, church fathers argued in public over and over and called each other "heretics" and the like, but that doesn't mean this has got to go on.

Charlie Sheen demanded an apology from Chuck Lorre. Rob Bell doesn't have the heart, but I think he deserves an apology from Piper.

-B

PS - Allison just informed me that she preordered Bell's book.

The Sad Reality That Is Gwyneth Paltrow's Singing

When this debuted on Glee (or rather, the video debuted on YouTube first) I posted it here and made some sort of snide comment about the questionable amount of auto tune used. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1_B9FCZJMA&]

My basic feeling at the time was that while she is an entertaining actress and for the sake of Glee they had to use some pitch correction, I doubt that she had that much of "pop" control over her voice. Not that "pop" control is really all that much different from any other type of control.

Little things like her performance of the word "driving" in the first line "I see you driving 'round town with the guy I love" just made me think there had to be too much computer work done to the vocals.

I had no idea that this was turning into a career for her.

She was introduced tonight at the Oscars as "Country Music's next sensation" (or something like that) and I assume this has all come from Country Strong's suc-wait, lack of success. [I'll post the video whenever it becomes available]

My theory remains true. What was the thing most missing from the performance? Control. Her voice isn't terrible, and yes she has some slight pitch problems. But, mostly what is missing is her control.

She probably sounds like a decent singer in the shower, but not in a microphone.

While in the shower, given the acoustics of typical bathrooms, little nuances in your voice that might not be as pleasing to the ear are covered up by the resonance supplied by the tile, etc. But, in a microphone (and worse, in a dry mix driven to a TV feed) all those nuances cover up the parts of your voice that are actually decent.

It is as if microphones do THE EXACT OPPOSITE that the bathroom walls do.

Which is why, in today's world, people who are not in mastery of their voice ought not sing into a microphone. Or be recorded. Or perform at the Oscars. Or be described as the next big thing.

Stop making actors...singers. Unless they are good. Gwyneth isn't.

-B

For the record, Bieber has incredible control of his voice for not having much training and being 16.

The Church vs. the church

I wrote a paper recently where I referred to the Reformation and I needed to be clear about capitalization of a few key terms.  So I asked.  The answer I got basically said that the Catholic church has capitalized "Church" and so because of that, reformed churches do not capitalize "church" because they are not referring to "THE Church" but rather to "church." Since I began this blog, I've been capitalizing "Church."

I thought I knew why at first. Since then, I have wondered about the significance this might bring about.

I remember learning, in high school, about the difference between "Communism" and "communism." "communism" was the ideal. "Communism" was what actually happened (think dictators and more non-communal type leadership efforts that created a bad name for communism and socialism among most of today's conservative Americans).

To me, in light of understanding the concept of Big C communism vs. Little C communism, I've had to reflect on the significance of the capitalization.  Because, as is true in every language, the words that you use and the way you place them and conjugate them signify and often mimic what you intend to say.  Even in my brief study of Greek in order to learn to read the New Testament, I have learned how certain interpretations of words can change entire theological ideas.

So my gut reaction, after hearing the explanation that the Catholic Church is referred to as "The Church," was to be pissed off. Who says they get to claim the proper noun?

Much of the language that many of the early Christians used, especially those around the time of Luther who did not agree with the dissenting voices, involved the idea of the "true church." Somehow, because the Catholic Church had some apostolic tradition and had been in existence since the beginning (many consider Peter to be the first papal type voice), their traditions were right and though there were many issues that came up...the "universal" (credit to Ignatius?) church was still worth sticking with.  Before the days of video cameras, copy machines, and computers, much emphasis was placed on the succession of traditions and documents. It all mattered where things came from and whom (who? The English language is so confusing) things came from.

The idea is dead simple: because I wasn't there with Jesus, I must try to understand those who were with him. This was important for the early church and it ought to still be important today. (I've always wanted to write a post about how stupid the Gospel of Peter is for attempting to try to pin Peter's name to it to give the document authority. What a bad practice.)

However, to me, the Reformation (both in parts of Europe, including England) changed that. Because we had a Canon, and the Catholic church had some unfortunate leadership, churches split off. Some maintained some traditions, some didn't. And, in 2011 we have a whole mess of churches that call themselves Christian churches.

When I refer to the "Church," I refer to the body of Christ (and purposefully I leave that "body" not capitalized).  For me, despite different traditions and understandings of Scripture, anyone who claims Christ and has confessed of their sins and accepted the love and grace is a part of the Church (this includes, but is not limited to: Catholics, Westboro Baptists, Methodists, persecuted Asian churches,  Calvinists, Church of Christ-ers, casual Catholics, casual Protestants, youth, women, Black churches, and more.)

**To me, it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with discipleship. Is discipleship a necessary trait in someone who follows Christ? Of course. They help make up the "Body" of Christ (see, capitalization).**

Here is the issue: if we continue to think of the crazies as some other sort of body, some other entity, we miss the boat and we end up with the same situation as the Islamic people today (i.e. they won't let us build a building of worship wherever we want).  The world paints them and us with the same brush: Westboro Baptists = Christians.

To me, anyone who would call themselves a Christian helps to make up The Church.

And The Church is in trouble. Why? Because as it stands right now, the Western part of The Church (mainly Euro-American bodies) is the body of Christ.  And we need to be the Body of Christ.

Can we continue to use the word "catholic" as "universal"? It seems to be that unity needs to be #1 priority and so when we talk about the future, we ought to use one term and all get behind that in order to move forward.

I think God has such high hopes for The Church.

-B

What Every Student Needs...Dropbox

In light of my previous post, it occurred to me how much of an evangelist I have become for Dropbox and how many other students risk too many of their valuable files to one hard drive.

Let's review one thing: your computer has a hard drive and that hard drive will fail.

I don't care if you have a Mac or a PC, most computers run off of a hard drive and those are made of moving parts and moving parts break. With the move to Solid State Drives (think of how the iPod touch has memory, it's all internal flash memory--like your USB drive) imminent, this may be less of a problem, but one thing will always remain...you HAVE to back your stuff up.

If you aren't backing up regularly, shame on you. You'll get what you deserve in time.

However, if you are a student (or any human with important files) you need Dropbox.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFb0NaeRmdg&]

For real, you need Dropbox. Its syncing capabilities are unreal.

Think of this, if you put your files on it, you can access them from wherever there is Internet, from any device. And...if your computer dies, your iPad dies, your android phone dies, your iPhone dies, and you've obviously had the worst day of your life...you STILL have your files, because they are stored in the cloud.

I remember telling a friend at FSC that she needed to have a folder on her computer of every class she'd ever taken and every note and paper from each class in each respective folder.

You need to do that. Then, you need to keep that folder as your Dropbox folder. Copy and paste it once and always save your stuff there from here on out.

Do it. Now. It is free for 2GB. Do it.

I like it so much, I've considered trying to pay for enough space for my entire iTunes library.

If you don't back up your computer, at least do this. To lose your stuff is to lose your life and memories.

-B

The iPod Nano as a Watch

  For the past couple of weeks, I've been wearing my new iPod nano as a watch. Full time. It's been awesome. I've decided to break it down into a bit of a review because I can EASILY see this as the way that all wearable electronics are going in the near future.

Last September, Steve Jobs introduced the new iPod line just in time so that we all could buy them up before Christmas. Isn't that convenient? Since the iPod touch came out, that event hasn't provided as many rumors as say, the iPhone events or that event back in January of 2010. However, for people who don't want to pay for a Mac, the iPod line is the easiest and cheapest way to enter the Apple world.

The new iPod nano was a new design, with some notable changes.  The iPod nano (6th generation) no longer had a video camera on it (like its predecessor) or even a camera on it at all. It did, however, employ a touch screen (Apple's famous "multitouch") and a new user interface. The thing was tiny. It also had a clip on the back so that we were no longer buying armbands etc in order to exercise with them.  It was quite a different concept and has seemed to be very successful thus far.

While Steve was introducing it, he mentioned that one of Apple's Board of Directors had commented that he would like to wear it as a watch. What a brilliant idea. When Steve says something like that from the stage, it doesn't take long for the fanboys (myself easily included) to get going.

Enter, TikTok. You can read all of the information there. After seeing it, I knew I had to have one.

Long story short, I now own two TikToks and Allison and I each have our own iPod nanos.

So what do I think of it?

PROS

• It's about the perfect size.
  • If I were a woman, it would be gigantic. But I'm not.
  • With this TikTok watch band, it doesn't appear bulky or annoying
• It holds my music, and I can listen to it from my watch.
  • I wanted to use this iPod nano to listen to all my podcasts on.  The problem was, if I listened to part of them on my iPhone and then later on my iPod, I'd have to sync both devices in order to pick up where I left on on the other device. This is something I think Apple is working on, but an annoyance nonetheless.
  • I can sync up playlists (like my playlist for the pre-service loop on Sunday mornings) and have them with me wherever I go. This also allows me to leave my iPod (before: my iPhone) at the sound booth or what have you and still have my phone for, you know, communicating.
• It stores my photos.
  • Need to show a slideshow of pictures you took on your last trip? You can carry them with you wherever you go (because you are always going to have your watch). Of course, you have to have Apple's 30-pin component cable, etc. But...still...does your watch do that?
  • It is a nice feeling that I can have my photos wherever I go and easily access them.  You're probably saying, "Doesn't your phone do that?" Yes, it does. But my phone also has apps. And music. Being able to split these things up onto other devices always has its advantages.
• Built in Radio
  • Radio is always good.  And now, always available.  Want to listen to the Duke game on the radio?  In Cameron and they won't let you take anything in?  Don't worry. You have it on your watch. Now...for those noise canceling earbuds...
• Built in Pedometer
  • All you runners know the advantages of having this at your beckon call at any given point. To be clear, I think it is only the software for the pedometer (still need Nike+) but I don't run, so I honestly don't know.
• It's an iPod. As a watch.
  • Given, there is lots of nerd factor here...but come on.  It's at least an intriguing idea.
• Has a "wake to clock" feature.
  • Let's be honest.  There wouldn't be much point of this if Apple has not enabled this.
• LOTS of battery life
  • I only charge this like once a week, if that.
• Apple Unity
  • I can charge it from the same devices as my iPhone and iPad (and so I always have one with me) and it will dock with the same docks I already have.  As annoying as their 30pin connectors seem to be, everyone know what an iPod cable is and most people have several spare. I keep one on my keychain so I am never without. The world is flooded with iPod cables and that works to the consumer's advantage.
• Functions as a Flash Drive
  • Plug it into any computer, and it will mount as a flash drive. You don't even have to go through iTunes. GREAT idea and I just wish they'd open the phone up to this too.

CONS

• To see the time, you have press the "on" button.
  • Fortunately, the TikTok's design allows for the buttons to be on one side and the dock connector to be on the other.  To use it, you never have to take it out of the TikTok. That is a huge advantage of other watch cases for this iPod.  HOWEVER, there is a noticeable lag (1 second or less) from when you press the button to when you see the screen.  The iPod never turns "off" so this is perhaps waking it from a deep sleep.  If it has been illuminated recently, the screen appears nearly instantaneously (but when you are looking at the time, you generally haven't looked at it within the past two minutes). It's not the end of the world because I don't check my watch THAT often, but I could see how some people wouldn't be able to take it.
• Turns out, plugging headphones into your wrist and actually trying to function is awkward.
  • It's not impossible and if you are just walking to class, it's not bad at all.  But, if you're trying to accomplish something, the cord can get in the way (not to mention if you have a really short ear bud cord). Thankfully, it is extremely easy to pop the iPod out of the TikTik and clip it to something.  Problem solved.
• "Multi-Touch" is a bit of a stretch.
  • When people think of multitouch, they think of "pinch to zoom".  The ONLY multi-touch on the iPod is the function that allows you to twist the screen to better orient how you are looking at it.  Even in the pictures "app," you can't pinch to zoom in, just double touch to zoom. I wouldn't quite say that Apple lies, because it does recognize two point of touch input at once, but the term "multi-touch" is not to be understood in the way that Apple has allowed you to understand it previously.
• No Digital Clock
  • This has got to have been an oversight.  The only clock face is analog. I'm used to analog watches, so that isn't a huge deal (and definitely worth having music on my wrist at any given point) but it would have been nice to have had a digital clock.  Maybe an update Apple?

So, is it worth it? I guess that's up to the individual. However, I'm never going back to a watch that doesn't hold my music. I use it more for music than I use my iPhone.

It is great. I can't wait to see some updates that make it even better.

-B

Red Light Cameras

Warning: Some of these are hard to watch.

Every once in awhile I get an email that actually is worth sharing in a way that is uplifting.

Here is what I have to say:

Do not run red lights. No hurry you are in is ever worth your life or the life of another.

ALWAYS enter intersections with caution, being aware of your surroundings and traffic intersecting you. Never trust another driver to take care of you, watch out for yourself.

If you run a red light and get caught, you get what you deserve. If you don't get caught, remember that Red Light cameras don't save lives. Only you can prevent an innocent life from being taken.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qvXbIenivk&]

-B

Patriot Network TV

This guy is a community college professor in Arizona. His whole premise is that Obama is going against the American people by siding with the drug cartels and filing a lawsuit to stop Arizona's illegal immigration codes (SB1070) from going through. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsH8xvjTAlo]

Only a few comments:

• "Let that sink in."  How about, no.
• The President should never be referred to as "Mr. Obama," but rather, "President Obama."
• The uses of the words "patriot" and "great Americans" imply that others against the movement are not either. I hate that.
• Videos that are intended to be seen as off the cuff speeches (no obvious TelePrompTers) are always more effective when they also appear unedited.
• "You're next." No. Please don't compare illegal immigration to the Holocaust. It is offensive, severely offensive.
• It sounds like he has been hanging out with Sarah Palin for too long.
• His watch would be cooler if it played music.
• Arizona's racism and harsh attitude toward illegal immigrants is so last year.
• I still say that our ancestors immigrated illegally here. The Natives hated it.

-B

Let My People Go

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_emuOVvlbU&] Not completely sure what they are saying but from what I could find it was either, "God is great" or "Mubarak down down."

This is a mess. A real mess.

When has government oppression and violence ever led to peace among a nation? Unfortunately, at this point, one of the ways I can see this getting fixed is by more substantial violence. If the US can stay out of it, we will be lucky(but perhaps wrong). When authoritative vans go out of their way to run over protestors, we are in big trouble.

If it is democracy that they want, they all (government and people) need to understand that peaceful demonstrations are an integral part of our success here. Think MLK Jr over Malcolm X.

Will it work? I'm not sure.

-B

On "Calling", Servanthood, and perhaps...Itinerancy

In the United Methodist Church, ordained elders practice itinerancy. If you are unfamiliar with the concept, the United Methodist Church's website says this:

United Methodism has a unique system of assigning clergy to churches which dates back to John Wesley and which is different from any other denomination. The system by which pastors are appointed to their charges by the bishops is called itinerancy.  The present form of the intinerancy grew from the practice of Methodist pastors traveling widely throughout the church on circuits. Assigned to service by a bishop, clergy remain with one particular congregation for a limited length of time. All pastors are under obligation to serve where appointed.

And you can read more about it here.

Itinerancy, like anything in life, has a lot of upsides and a number of downsides.  UM churches always have a pastor, sometimes several, and pastors always have a job. Sort of.  Even in the conferences when guaranteed appointment is not a reality, being a UMC elder still serves as a bit of security.

Downsides? Well, that depends on who you talk to. Some pastors will tell you that there is no downside.  Some will tell you that moving often is a downside.  Some will tell you that being at the mercy of a human decision who appoints you is a downside. Some will tell you that being put in a position that does not play into your greatest strengths is a downside.  Others would add that not being able to do much about it s a downside.

Still, most pastors would tell you that they enjoy being a servant. Because allowing themselves to be open to wherever they are "led" allows them to have a servant's attitude and posture at all times. For good reason too, because it is true.  However ascetic that may seem at any point, it is the way and tradition that it has been handled and for the most part...it seems to have worked.

As I often do though, I have many questions. And as most of my questions do, I might piss people off. So? Press onward.

Servanthood.

Like, "choose life", I never like when utopian, goal-centered, life-inspiring words are aligned with practices. My immediate thoughts when I hear this language approached in this way are not that that practice (in this case, itinerancy) is simply a form of servanthood (which it is), but rather that that use of language implies that that practice is either 1) the only way to achieve the goal-centered, life-inspiring, way-to-live-your-life or 2) that your form of being a servant is a higher form of servanthood than someone who might not "serve" in the same form that you do.

Let me be clear: I've never heard anyone suggest this. But, the language-to me-is scary.

Of course, you'll never meet a United Methodist pastor who thinks this way. Well, I hope not. Why? "Call".

I truly believe that all pastors who serve congregations are serving as pastors (no matter what their appointment...even if it is not in a church at the current moment) feel called to do so.  They feel called to serve as a pastor.  In general.  Serve as a pastor.

For me, and I don't claim that it is fair to blanket anyone else in my statements, I don't get it. For me. Some people feel called to serve wherever they are told to go. They do it with a willing heart. If they are specifically talented in one area (let's say that they are church "rebuilders") and they are sent to a church that doesn't need those specific talents at that given time, they do so willingly because they feel called to...serve.

But when I examine myself, my own gifts, my own talents, I don't see where they fit into this model.

When you feel so strongly about how God is using and shaping you, I can't help but feel like even though it may not be as ascetic (because I maintain some control of my own future) it is still a sense of servanthood. And I doubt that many would disagree.  This is why the UMC has an order of Deacons.

So, the main argument-I think- has to do with appropriateness of the role of being a servant for each person, as it relates to their life and situation, and "calling."  This seems fairly obvious. To many, this is the definition of calling.

I believe that God will use every single person. And I think that God will use every single person's talents for the good of the Church if they'll allow.  And, obviously that not only includes pastors but also anyone else who is willing to serve in any capacity.

And maybe it is my own struggle with authority.  And maybe it is that I don't like being told what to do.

Or.  Maybe.  It is that I truly feel like I am talented in certain areas of ministry (and suck in others) and that to be placed somewhere where those gifts aren't being used to the full potential would be a detriment to the potential of what God could be doing. Not that God won't use you in every situation and circumstance, but certainly talents and gifts can be used in new and refreshing ways in some places over others. I think that's what the issue is for me. Find your fit. Find your place. Find your gifts. Put them there.

God uses all in all situations, this much is true.  But, the burn and fire inside of your heart is perhaps a true calling from God, not your own desires. And maybe you ought to do something about it, and stop the ascetic servanthood.

Do what you do, well.

-B

P.S. - I hope this blog post sparks conversation about submission and obedience.

People That Impress Me

We are not who we are until we discover who it was that made us who we are. Then, and only then, can we live into the reality of who we are and where we are going. To deny influences in our lives is just silly. For me, I have a lot of respect for the brilliant. I have a lot of respect for the movers and shakers in our world. These people have helped define our culture and because of my obsession with the impact that culture makes on our lives, I cannot help but be incredibly impressed with them and their work. Many of these below are not "righteous" people and did not stand for a purpose that we consider right. It is impossible however to deny their gifts and talents.

Whether or not I agree with them, these are people who impress me. In no particular order, off the top of my head, and I am sure the list it largely incomplete. I haven't even googled the names, so my apologies for misspellings.

Those that impress me:

Jesus Christ Howard Stern Leo Laporte Steve Wozniak Julia Roberts Bill Gates JS Bach Nolan Ryan Adolf Hitler Eminem Meryl Streep Steve Jobs Rob Bell David Crowder Joe Torre Andy Crouch Keith Olbermann Rush Limbaugh Paul Michael Jordan Louie Giglio Michael Jackson Tim Russert Eugene Peterson Jonny Ive Ellen Degeneres Kobe Bryant Franklin Delano Roosevelt Constantine Moses Chris Tomlin Mark Zuckerberg Larry Page Babe Ruth Asa Candler Mother Teresa Barack Obama Bill O'Reilly George Washington Job Thomas Jefferson Aaron Sorkin Leonardo DaVinci William Shakespeare Darlene Zschech TobyMac Matt Lauer Shane Claiborne John Wesley Warren W. Willis Diane Sawyer Beethoven Kevin James Norman Rockwell Benjamin Franklin Ruth Rick Warren Ray Romano Francis Chan Moses Hogan B.o.B Ricky Gervais Anne Frank Bruno Mars Michael W. Smith Billy Graham Ted Williams Steven Curtis Chapman Joel Houston George W. Bush Dan Marino Henry Ford Thomas Edison Dan Brown JK Rowling Stephanie Meyers Taylor Swift Kanye West Mark Driscoll John Gruber Charles Wesley Albert Einstein King Tut Peyton Manning Napoleon George Lucas Tom Hanks Ann Curry Jack Mason Peter Sean Parker Sergei Brin Jackie Robinson Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. JFK Abraham Lincoln My family

-B

Salvation As An Art Form

Last night, Allison and I were presented with the opportunity that every customer at Family Christian Stores has when they purchase anything.  You can predict it: Cue the line, "Would you like to donate $5 to buy a Bible for a child in need?"

Perhaps it is because of my guilty conscience, or perhaps it is because I think that it is a good idea, I usually donate. Last night's exchange was a bit different. They still offered the Bible for $5, but this time it was for a women's center in our area sent to encourage women in the midst of a pregnancy to "choose life" in their own situation.

You can read more about the program here.

Not paying any attention to how the donation of a Bible would convince a pregnant mother not to proceed with an abortion in the first place, something still struck me as odd. And I didn't know why.

I generally don't oppose the giving of the book that tells the story of our Savior and Lord and often donate for the cause. But something about this marketing scheme seemed...off to me.  How can a Christian oppose the giving of the Bible to one whom might benefit from the reading of it?

I realized that I didn't oppose the idea as much as I let the marketing and phrasing around the promotion bother me. But I still didn't know why.

At first, I thought, "There's the typical Conservative side of things, maybe that's just annoying." That certainly played a role, but that didn't seem deep enough. Surely that wouldn't bother me that much. Then I thought, what is it about "choose life" that is so bothersome? And I realized, the typical Right Wing of America uses the phrase politically and in the midst of their own political ambitions judges those who are not members of their political party.  Mostly this judgement manifests itself inside of the assumption that those who aren't members of their party have different beliefs. As in, you aren't a Republican, you aren't pro life. And I don't care what political party I align myself with, I'm not sure that my being pro-life can be decided by what party I decide to join. Aren't all humans in some sense "pro life" when it comes to most things?

So perhaps my problem with the Bible donation was that the "choose life" phrase assumes that one might NOT choose life. 

And then I thought, "Wait a second, how are we defining life?" Do we not have faith that the God who had the foresight to bring us into the world would not save us no matter what action our earthly potential parent might take?  It seemed to me like maybe we weren't putting enough emphasis on the life to come. 

I'm not defending abortion, I think that dangers and problems in pregnancy ought to be taken into consideration because it is SUCH a case by case, situation by situation basis? I just think that when we implore others to "choose life" perhaps we are not taking into account much of the future: salvation.

I had to figure out how this type of logic would make sense. Because I can't believe that these people who exercise these thoughts WOULDN'T think that salvation isn't of utmost importance.  Another realization: what does the salvation rely on? Oh yeah, their idea of salvation hangs on a conversion experience. A single point in time when Jesus was invited into their heart. From then on, they were "saved".

While I whole heartedly believe that the Christian life requires a conversion experience of some sort and a conscious decision to follow Christ with an outward sign of that (baptism, confirmation, etc), I have always struggled with the salvation factor. I believe that God came to earth to save all. Not just Israel.  Not just Calvinists. God came to save adults.  God came to save those that will never hear the Gospel. God came to save those who will never be born. 

And I had that sinking feeling that we all have every once in awhile when we are thinking about God and the work of God in our own lives and the world:  I. Don't. Get. It.  I. Will. Never. Get. It. 

I can't understand. Because it isn't up to me to understand. 

Humans do this, don't we? We have an issue, something that doesn't make sense, and we try to rationalize it.

But we will never understand it. And it is still beautiful. Like art.

If we believe that God and God alone can and does provide salvation, and that nothing of our own merit earns us a way to living with God eternally, then we have to look at God's way of providing salvation as art, something that is so beautiful that we can't stop looking and will never be able to either explain it, fully comprehend it, or recreate it.

It is like when you read through one of Aaron Sorkin's dialogues. Or when you watch Kobe Bryant shoot a three.  Or when you hear Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau sing Lieder. Or when you look at anything Da Vinci. Or when you watch Barack Obama deliver a speech. Or when you read a Shakespearian plot line. Or when you watch Julia Roberts act. Or look at the design of an Apple product.  Or watch Nolan Ryan throw a fastball. Or watch Jim Parsons deliver a Sheldon line. Or listen to Steve Wozniak describe building the first personal computer. 

It is brilliance. And all are art forms that we can't understand. Can't figure out, and can't help but see the beauty in.

I can't help but think that God's saving grace works in the same way.

Perhaps, rather than trying to decide what God is doing in the world and force it on others, we would do well to take a step back every once in awhile, take in the beauty of what it means to be a child that God has saved from sin, and let that inspiration that is bound to appear speak for itself.

-B

How the Verizon iPhone Will Hurt Android

There are two types of people in the world:

• Those that REALLY love their phone
• Those that REALLY love their carrier

Since 2007, those who loved the iPhone have put up with AT&T despite the bad publicity the company got.

At 11am today, Verizon is expected to take the stage in New York and announce that Verizon will carry the iPhone for the first time.  This is significant because there has never been a CDMA compatible iPhone, and Verizon is the leading competitor to AT&T.

Many have wondered how many AT&T iPhone customers will switch later this month when the Verizon iPhone hits shelves.  I don't.

I've talked to a LOT of people who have Android phones and like them. But, given the option, would have bought an iPhone. It's not that Android is bad, but the cultish atmosphere behind it is found mostly in tech geeks, not the general public. The iPhone, because of Apple and because of its name, has a huge following in the consumer space. Android is more capable than iOS in many ways, but doesn't have the fit and polish that the iPhone has.

If given the choice between an Android handset and an iPhone and you are an average consumer, what would attract you to Android? What would attract you to the iPhone? I think the iPhone has more attraction points for the typical consumer.

The question isn't whether the Verizon iPhone will hurt AT&T.  Many AT&T customers have been AT&T customers for years.  Many are happy with their AT&T service and coverage (myself included). The Verizon iPhone will hurt Droid sales. The Verizon iPhone will hurt Android market share.

The Verizon iPhone will do nothing but help Apple.

I've been dreading this day for a long time because those who REALLY love their carrier will now REALLY love their phone.  And they will probably shove it in all the AT&T's customers faces.

But now I don't care.  At least they'll finally get their way. I care more about them being Apple fans than I do AT&T fans anyway.

-B

A Bicycle For Our Minds

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob_GX50Za6c&]

You can say a lot about Steve Jobs, but from the very beginning, he "got it".

The ingenuity of human innovation HAS to be a God-given gift, and perhaps that is why it is so frustrating to see companies that do not focus on innovation in new products, but rather focus on profit instead.

My father once told me, "A man's work is only as good as his tools." We are fortunate that we were selected to be the inhabitants of this earth that can think for ourselves. In addition, we have the dexterity in our physical form that can take what our minds process and create new things that advance who we are. The tech industry today is easily one of the best examples, but innovation happens everyday in things like medicine and peace making as well.

I can't help but think that, in its own way, innovation is a form of worship.

-B

Andre Rieu, "Classical" Music, Entertainment, and Art

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]

If you've ever been bored in front of the TV and have stumbled upon PBS, you've probably seen Andre Rieu perform with his 5o-or-so member orchestra. The Today Show did a special on him last week an replayed it this morning. I couldn't find it online, but plenty of his performances are on YouTube.

In short, the sequence talked about how Andre was raised in a musical family and his father was a classical conductor. I assume that they were referring to the genre, not necessarily the actual Classical period.

Supposedly, Andre didn't like the "stuffy" atmosphere that was present in the Classical music world and sought to fix that because "music is an emotion" and served a higher purpose. I suppose you could say that Andre felt as if the uppity sense of the Classical world and the fans of it ("that pop music is just too...catchy")was destroying the culture of the art and he desired to make it a fun experience. If you watch any of his performances on PBS, you'll know that there are all kinds of parts added to the "show" to make it entertaining.

That's the word I was hung up on.  Entertaining.

When I studied music, I came to understand it as a form of art; it was sometimes in attractive forms, sometimes not...but still art.  Often, because it is a form of art that many people are not as skilled at, musical performances of any degree bear a sense of entertainment.  I enjoy going to recitals of singers who are better than me because I am not as good as them-I can learn from their performance and interpretations.  At face value, that logic would hold for a non singer...because someone who doesn't sing well is by definition not as good as the performer meaning that they would find a degree of entertainment inside of the performance.

However, if you have been to a "Classical" performance (recital or otherwise) in recent years and you observe the audience, you'll do well to glean a few details that might lead to a better understanding:

1. If it is not an incredibly popular artist or series, most of the crowd will be at least in their 60's.
2. Those who are musicians will be there with eyes wide open and critiques flowing.
3. Those who aren't either a)Seniors or b)Musicians will be a few winks away from sleep.

Obviously these are generalized statements and will in no way hold true across every performance, but do have a ring of truth to them.

The logic from above just doesn't work. I've noticed it in the declining ticket sales of the Fine Arts Series in Branscomb Auditorium at Florida Southern. I've noticed it in conversations with others.  I've noticed it in observing performances and the audiences of them. Perhaps you have too.

I think the key is that a musician (or one who sympathizes...I know the broad statements seem a bit utopian-don't be offended) has a bit of a higher understanding about the composition, about the technique, and about the practice of performance.  This knowledge stimulates some sort of intellect that seeks to learn more. That learning is entertainment. It is enjoyable and will keep one who is intrigued by those thoughts on the edge of their seat at every phrase and breath.

But that's not the typical world. Most people don't understand. And because their idea of "good music" hinges around the backbeat and clever rhyming of words...this type of art is no longer as "entertaining" as it once was.

In the Baroque and Classical eras, music wasn't the "stuffy" thing we think about as now. It was meant for dancing.  It was meant as background music. It was meant for parties. It was an art form, but entertained as well. It was all they knew. Gradually, over time, this shifted. What would have been considered "catchy" melodies in Bach's time were replaced by "catchy" melodies in Beatles' music. Sure, people went to Beatles concerts, but as recordings were easier and easier to come by, people played that music at parties. Even now, you cannot walk into a club or bar where music isn't playing.

The interesting thing about Andre Rieu is that he appears to have caught it.  He seems to understand this disconnect between the art of years ago and the culture of today. In making it funny and adding showmanship he has made it "entertaining". He is incredibly popular.

What was funny about the Today show piece this morning is that they spoke about how the "Classical" world has turned their nose at Andre Rieu's efforts. They say it cheapens the art.

I try to be a little more positive. I think it brings an awareness back to a culture that forgot.

It probably only "cheapens" the art because our culture has been..."cheapened". The music on the radio today is much more simplistic than even Beatles songs. And The Beatles were known for having A LOT of catchy music (I mean, just compare their stuff to Dylan and you'll understand). But Andre Rieu is taking a form of art and entertainment that he enjoys and bringing it back to the masses in a way that will get everyone's attention. I don't think it can be considered "cheap" if it is referring back to the art of old.

Better yet: his main crowd...Seniors.

I guess I'm saying this: Artists tend to want to bring attention to the art that they view as "sacred". That's fine. But in the end it was just a creation by a human. Talented, brilliant, genius humans are born everyday.  Let's celebrate the past and the thoughts and art forms of old.  But let's also recognize innovation.  Let's call what is good good and what is bad bad.

And finally, let's all get over ourselves just a little bit.

-B

Texting While Driving

Short, yet emotional documentary that AT&T put together about the effects of texting while driving. Told by family, friends, and strangers who caused and were affected by texting while driving. One of the arguments made is that no one sees drinking while driving as something that is acceptable but almost all of us text and drive. With the advent of keyboard less devices becoming more and more popular, the dangers are multiplied. With drinking and driving, your vision is impaired. With texting, your vision isn't there at all. I'd almost rather have a drunk driver because they are most likely trying hard to pay attention and drive safely whereas a texting driver doesn't care.

[youtube=Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DebhWD6ljZs&]

About a year ago, I noticed this to be a problem in my own driving habits. I have thought many times that phones need a driving mode, where text messages are automatically responded to with a "driving" mark and don't even appear to the driver. It could be automatic so that whenever a driver enters a car, the phone can't not go into the mode. Unfortunately, this would likely only appear in top level phones and cars, something teenagers don't often have. Unless, I suppose, congress were to step in.

Personally, I use my phone as a GPS device, attached by suction cup to my windshield. I use voice control for calling and ipod control and the angle is such that I don't even like typing on it while parked. It has worked for me because I don't even consider responding unless I am at a light. I just wish I had a way to let the sender know I wasn't ignoring them.

If you were 23 more times likely to die doing any other activities, you wouldn't do them. So why do we do this?

I invite you to think about what measures you might put into place in your own driving habits so that you aren't even tempted to respond to a text message.

-B